Individuals who sue don't get justice. They get compensation. Justice is only obtained when the plaintiff is a governing body. If these people want to sue, what they're after is compensation.
Justice? I never claimed it would be justice. What about the whole US involvement in the middle east has ever been successful at having any significant relation to justice? I'm sure there's something someone did, if viewed from a sufficiently local perspective... However, local governments all over this country have been trying to make up for deficits through civil asset forfeiture. Most of those actions have nothing to do with justice either.
On average, I think the amount of care people in the USA have for the lives of people in the rest of the world is about zero. The people who value those lives are canceled out by the people who wish they didn't exist. As bad as they are, most of the politicians are probably actually better than the average citizen. Most of the Americans giving themselves a flogging will let you watch if you sub$cribe to their webcam. For an additional fee, they'll say it's for allowing their government to do stuff.
Mount an incursion? - of course not. $750,000,000,000 in civil asset forfeiture for the crime of enabling W. to obtain congressional help in his plan to throw away American lives and trillions of dollars in response to that incident. They invested heavily in the assets of a powerful nation of idiots. If they were also complicit in the 9/11 attacks, then the seizure would be an object lesson in what comes of that sort of behavior. Really, they should be ditching those assets now, so they have nothing for the US to seize.
I'd be thanking them for ditching their leverage and wishing them good luck in their ongoing economic war with Iran. Simultaneously, I'd be thankful that a country that executes people on the basis of accusations of witchcraft is less able to wield influence over internal decisions in my country. I'd honestly prefer that their holdings of US assets are nil.
People wealthy enough to buy this generally spend a lot of money on getting a mattress that ideally matches their personal comfort interests. This Spanish company ought to be selling refits to existing mattress systems. That wire frame photo on the smartress site doesn't look like my favorite pocket coils.
What I need is a kind of shorthand for ideas instead of sounds and handwriting recognition for that, so I don't have to pay so much attention to the note taking process and can focus on the concepts being presented.
How advanced is their fishing enforcement budget? Do they have the money to keep the advanced crews and fuel on these advanced vessels in the neighborhood of Ascension on an ongoing basis?
Near as I can tell the reason is economic. Diesel engines cost more. Hybrids cost more. So Diesel hybrids would cost more + more, and manufacturers don't think enough people would pay that much up front. In theory, series hybrids (like the trains) could be modular, with a provision to swap the generator set, and customers could buy what they want (diesel, gasoline, gas turbine, fuel cell), but actual cars aren't yet built that way. I think modular costs more.
Could you use a browser plugin that acts a little bit like a distributed version of TOR by having your requests reach the internet via other browsers running the plugin? The idea wouldn't be to make your browsing untraceable, but rather to make the sort of metadata that ISPs are forced to collect unuseful for monitoring the browsers running the plugin. The big problem would be adoption. Each individual running the plugin would have legal vulnerability similar to that of someone running a TOR exit node. If you had a popular news story about someone abusing the collected metadata, that would be a good time to announce a free browser plugin that protects people from that sort of abuse. If the adoption is sufficiently widespread, action by the government to imprison lots of people who see their actions as protecting themselves from metadata abuse would be deeply unpopular.
Alternatively, why not just move? Why support with the taxes on your labour a government that does that to its citizens?
I've only ever owned 5 vehicles. I still have #1, #3, & #5. I bought #2 for $200 as a way to get from point A to point B after I fell asleep & rolled #1, and I sold it a few years later for that same price to someone with a similar need. #4 was just a mistake. I need to build myself a house (that has a garage) before I even consider becoming anything like an auto aficionado.
Yeah, I grew up in rural WV, mostly. There's lots of logging roads on private property, and my understanding was and is that unless someone else owns a right of way, the owner of the property can deny access to other vehicles, and that people too young to have a driver's license (or otherwise not in possession of one) can drive (usually farm tractors and little ATVs) on these roads with the owner's permission, whereas it's illegal (although some people in WV would say "technically illegal" and try to do so anyways) for those people to be driving anything on public roads.
Thanks for telling me about the Golden Road. That was new to me, and I'm glad to hear of it. I take it that no one gets tickets for impromptu races on that road, even as there's no trouble with the planned events. My dad once told me that California has a law against maintaining a feature on your property that makes it attractive for people to behave in a hazardous fashion, but I don't know that Maine has any similar sort of law.
I have to agree with you that hiring work done by auto mechanics is often worthwhile, but I think you'd agree, that understanding what's going on well enough to do some basic rudimentary quality control can often be beneficial. Having done a fair amount of mechanical work in the past, I do feel obliged to mention that if you're regularly smacking your knuckles, you want different wrenches, although, certainly the different wrenches being ones in someone else's hand does the job just fine.
but if a well funded group of Native Americans took no money from the Federal government and wanted to build and maintain an airport on their land, they could probably tell the TSA to take a flying fuck. In fact, if an airplane departing from their airport spent some time flying over international waters, they might be able to charge members of the TSA for having just that experience.
You don't need a license from the government if you're driving on private property with permission of the owner. It's just that private property owners have never banded together to build and maintain their own alternate set of highways. You need a license from the government to use their roads, because it's their roads - built and maintained by them on land they have acquired. You could campaign for a ballot initiative to eliminate the need for driver's licenses. Note, however, that whereas airlines don't own airports, the railroads do own their own property, and Amtrak has thrown the TSA off it in the past.
If someone is driving to where you want to go and you arrange with them to ride along, (not hitch hiking, something arranged in advance of their trip) there's no legal requirement for that person to check your ID. With 350 million Americans, there's bound to be someone willing to trust a stranger (eg, all the people that used to pick up hitch hikers).
Not in your pocket. That's what I think is the case from reading Verizon's actual announcement. If you have a huge outstanding balance with your old carrier (but you also pass Verizon's credit check), and you hanker to trade in your current smartphone and buy a 4g smartphone from Verizon and use their service for 6 months or more, then it might be a good deal.
For the small number of such symbols I use regularly, I make up a text file (called "insert symbols") that has these symbols so I can copy & paste them where I need them. I wouldn't use them to replace **2, but I use the little circle to replace "Degrees" when talking about temperatures very regularly.
I have to agree with you that the attractiveness of an item to a thief relates to the reliability of the market for what has been stolen. However, keep in mind that thieves will happily target 6 figure industrial equipment if they can easily pull 4 figures worth of copper out of it, because there's a reliable market for that copper.
I think I remember a story that said that collisions with pedestrians is one of the places where EU vehicle safety standards are different from the USA standards in a beneficial way. I wonder if USA vehicles complying with this change makes it one step easier to sell the same cars in both places.
So whoever owns a federal judge claims someone has their secret code (without revealing the code they claim is being infringed, because it's secret) and so gets the judge to seize the contents of the other person's computer. Then the judge owner's employee points at some of the seized code and says "See right here - that's not his idea. That's our secret."
So, what I read here is that "the best lawyers" can make violating the law not matter and that this is fine for hereditary wealth but not for mafia wealth. How about we ditch CAF and go to single payer for lawyers? This would also greatly level the legal playing field between individuals and corporate entities.
When I said "If your resources are significantly greater than theirs," I was including brainpower. I am certain that a knowledgeable, skillful attacker can break in to lots of places, but the great majority of people who try to rob residences don't have a lot of knowledge or skill, and are often distracted by a nagging lack of drugs. I can stop a determined attacker's entry with an inexpensive lock if that person is really determined but has an IQ of 45. However, you may notice that when I said "you can stop someone from breaking in," I did not say "by only using only a lock." When I think of decently good security, I think of a US Embassy in a less than friendly country. It's possible to attack them successfully, but it takes a fairly significant amount of resources. I could say "I could build a 40"x24"x200' steel reinforced concrete wall in my yard to stop people from bypassing my lock by driving their vehicle through the wall of my house." And, you could reply "a determined attacker with a Sherman tank will laugh at your barrier and punch into your house anyways." You'd be correct, but people with access to that equipment seldom use it for petty theft. The same is true of brain power. I don't have the opinion that purchasing a really cool lock will solve one's security problems, but I also do believe that the people most likely to attempt to steal from a residence aren't skillful, determined master thieves. I think that telling people to just expect that malicious, dishonest people will win in matters of security is an improper representation of reality. Making the effort to include attention to security when making decisions is beneficial in a statistically significant number of cases because the majority of criminals smart enough to defeat thoughtful security are also smart enough to target situations where the security is lax in relation to the prize.
I disagree. You can hope for more. You can stop someone from breaking in, even if they really want to, if your available resources are significantly greater than theirs.
If you've ever wanted to categorize things into folder and subfolders, tag names are the folder names. So, If you had a category of "how to do photography" websites, you might want them in a "how-to" category under "photo" or you might want them in a "photo" category under "how-to." The notion with tags is that if you give them each both a "photo" and a "how-to" tag, the computer can quickly sort them to match which organizational preference you have at time of use.
Slashdot Mirror
Individuals who sue don't get justice. They get compensation. Justice is only obtained when the plaintiff is a governing body. If these people want to sue, what they're after is compensation.
Justice? I never claimed it would be justice. What about the whole US involvement in the middle east has ever been successful at having any significant relation to justice? I'm sure there's something someone did, if viewed from a sufficiently local perspective... However, local governments all over this country have been trying to make up for deficits through civil asset forfeiture. Most of those actions have nothing to do with justice either.
On average, I think the amount of care people in the USA have for the lives of people in the rest of the world is about zero. The people who value those lives are canceled out by the people who wish they didn't exist. As bad as they are, most of the politicians are probably actually better than the average citizen. Most of the Americans giving themselves a flogging will let you watch if you sub$cribe to their webcam. For an additional fee, they'll say it's for allowing their government to do stuff.
Two day shipping on streaming video content isn't working for me.
Mount an incursion? - of course not. $750,000,000,000 in civil asset forfeiture for the crime of enabling W. to obtain congressional help in his plan to throw away American lives and trillions of dollars in response to that incident. They invested heavily in the assets of a powerful nation of idiots. If they were also complicit in the 9/11 attacks, then the seizure would be an object lesson in what comes of that sort of behavior. Really, they should be ditching those assets now, so they have nothing for the US to seize.
I'd be thanking them for ditching their leverage and wishing them good luck in their ongoing economic war with Iran. Simultaneously, I'd be thankful that a country that executes people on the basis of accusations of witchcraft is less able to wield influence over internal decisions in my country. I'd honestly prefer that their holdings of US assets are nil.
People wealthy enough to buy this generally spend a lot of money on getting a mattress that ideally matches their personal comfort interests. This Spanish company ought to be selling refits to existing mattress systems. That wire frame photo on the smartress site doesn't look like my favorite pocket coils.
What I need is a kind of shorthand for ideas instead of sounds and handwriting recognition for that, so I don't have to pay so much attention to the note taking process and can focus on the concepts being presented.
How advanced is their fishing enforcement budget? Do they have the money to keep the advanced crews and fuel on these advanced vessels in the neighborhood of Ascension on an ongoing basis?
Near as I can tell the reason is economic. Diesel engines cost more. Hybrids cost more. So Diesel hybrids would cost more + more, and manufacturers don't think enough people would pay that much up front. In theory, series hybrids (like the trains) could be modular, with a provision to swap the generator set, and customers could buy what they want (diesel, gasoline, gas turbine, fuel cell), but actual cars aren't yet built that way. I think modular costs more.
Could you use a browser plugin that acts a little bit like a distributed version of TOR by having your requests reach the internet via other browsers running the plugin? The idea wouldn't be to make your browsing untraceable, but rather to make the sort of metadata that ISPs are forced to collect unuseful for monitoring the browsers running the plugin. The big problem would be adoption. Each individual running the plugin would have legal vulnerability similar to that of someone running a TOR exit node. If you had a popular news story about someone abusing the collected metadata, that would be a good time to announce a free browser plugin that protects people from that sort of abuse. If the adoption is sufficiently widespread, action by the government to imprison lots of people who see their actions as protecting themselves from metadata abuse would be deeply unpopular.
Alternatively, why not just move? Why support with the taxes on your labour a government that does that to its citizens?
I've only ever owned 5 vehicles. I still have #1, #3, & #5. I bought #2 for $200 as a way to get from point A to point B after I fell asleep & rolled #1, and I sold it a few years later for that same price to someone with a similar need. #4 was just a mistake. I need to build myself a house (that has a garage) before I even consider becoming anything like an auto aficionado.
Yeah, I grew up in rural WV, mostly. There's lots of logging roads on private property, and my understanding was and is that unless someone else owns a right of way, the owner of the property can deny access to other vehicles, and that people too young to have a driver's license (or otherwise not in possession of one) can drive (usually farm tractors and little ATVs) on these roads with the owner's permission, whereas it's illegal (although some people in WV would say "technically illegal" and try to do so anyways) for those people to be driving anything on public roads.
Thanks for telling me about the Golden Road. That was new to me, and I'm glad to hear of it. I take it that no one gets tickets for impromptu races on that road, even as there's no trouble with the planned events. My dad once told me that California has a law against maintaining a feature on your property that makes it attractive for people to behave in a hazardous fashion, but I don't know that Maine has any similar sort of law.
I have to agree with you that hiring work done by auto mechanics is often worthwhile, but I think you'd agree, that understanding what's going on well enough to do some basic rudimentary quality control can often be beneficial. Having done a fair amount of mechanical work in the past, I do feel obliged to mention that if you're regularly smacking your knuckles, you want different wrenches, although, certainly the different wrenches being ones in someone else's hand does the job just fine.
but if a well funded group of Native Americans took no money from the Federal government and wanted to build and maintain an airport on their land, they could probably tell the TSA to take a flying fuck. In fact, if an airplane departing from their airport spent some time flying over international waters, they might be able to charge members of the TSA for having just that experience.
You don't need a license from the government if you're driving on private property with permission of the owner. It's just that private property owners have never banded together to build and maintain their own alternate set of highways. You need a license from the government to use their roads, because it's their roads - built and maintained by them on land they have acquired. You could campaign for a ballot initiative to eliminate the need for driver's licenses. Note, however, that whereas airlines don't own airports, the railroads do own their own property, and Amtrak has thrown the TSA off it in the past.
If someone is driving to where you want to go and you arrange with them to ride along, (not hitch hiking, something arranged in advance of their trip) there's no legal requirement for that person to check your ID. With 350 million Americans, there's bound to be someone willing to trust a stranger (eg, all the people that used to pick up hitch hikers).
Not in your pocket. That's what I think is the case from reading Verizon's actual announcement. If you have a huge outstanding balance with your old carrier (but you also pass Verizon's credit check), and you hanker to trade in your current smartphone and buy a 4g smartphone from Verizon and use their service for 6 months or more, then it might be a good deal.
So, could we have a system where politicians would need to take classes in economics, etc?
For the small number of such symbols I use regularly, I make up a text file (called "insert symbols") that has these symbols so I can copy & paste them where I need them. I wouldn't use them to replace **2, but I use the little circle to replace "Degrees" when talking about temperatures very regularly.
I have to agree with you that the attractiveness of an item to a thief relates to the reliability of the market for what has been stolen. However, keep in mind that thieves will happily target 6 figure industrial equipment if they can easily pull 4 figures worth of copper out of it, because there's a reliable market for that copper.
I think I remember a story that said that collisions with pedestrians is one of the places where EU vehicle safety standards are different from the USA standards in a beneficial way. I wonder if USA vehicles complying with this change makes it one step easier to sell the same cars in both places.
So whoever owns a federal judge claims someone has their secret code (without revealing the code they claim is being infringed, because it's secret) and so gets the judge to seize the contents of the other person's computer. Then the judge owner's employee points at some of the seized code and says "See right here - that's not his idea. That's our secret."
So, what I read here is that "the best lawyers" can make violating the law not matter and that this is fine for hereditary wealth but not for mafia wealth. How about we ditch CAF and go to single payer for lawyers? This would also greatly level the legal playing field between individuals and corporate entities.
When I said "If your resources are significantly greater than theirs," I was including brainpower. I am certain that a knowledgeable, skillful attacker can break in to lots of places, but the great majority of people who try to rob residences don't have a lot of knowledge or skill, and are often distracted by a nagging lack of drugs. I can stop a determined attacker's entry with an inexpensive lock if that person is really determined but has an IQ of 45. However, you may notice that when I said "you can stop someone from breaking in," I did not say "by only using only a lock." When I think of decently good security, I think of a US Embassy in a less than friendly country. It's possible to attack them successfully, but it takes a fairly significant amount of resources. I could say "I could build a 40"x24"x200' steel reinforced concrete wall in my yard to stop people from bypassing my lock by driving their vehicle through the wall of my house." And, you could reply "a determined attacker with a Sherman tank will laugh at your barrier and punch into your house anyways." You'd be correct, but people with access to that equipment seldom use it for petty theft. The same is true of brain power. I don't have the opinion that purchasing a really cool lock will solve one's security problems, but I also do believe that the people most likely to attempt to steal from a residence aren't skillful, determined master thieves. I think that telling people to just expect that malicious, dishonest people will win in matters of security is an improper representation of reality. Making the effort to include attention to security when making decisions is beneficial in a statistically significant number of cases because the majority of criminals smart enough to defeat thoughtful security are also smart enough to target situations where the security is lax in relation to the prize.
I disagree. You can hope for more. You can stop someone from breaking in, even if they really want to, if your available resources are significantly greater than theirs.
If you've ever wanted to categorize things into folder and subfolders, tag names are the folder names. So, If you had a category of "how to do photography" websites, you might want them in a "how-to" category under "photo" or you might want them in a "photo" category under "how-to." The notion with tags is that if you give them each both a "photo" and a "how-to" tag, the computer can quickly sort them to match which organizational preference you have at time of use.